Curious distribution for wind turbine sickness

Simon Chapman has charted complaints about wind farms. Reports of illness caused by wind farms come in clusters. They are found in some countries and not others, and some regions of some countries and not others. And they rarely come from people who stand to benefit from wind turbines on their land.

Transcript

Robyn Williams: Evidence: the essence of good science. But many misinterpret what it means. Simon Chapman has written about this problem in connection with wind technology, most recently in New Scientist magazine. And here he is for The Science Show on RN.

Simon Chapman: New technology has long attracted concerns about modern health worries. Microwave ovens, televisions, computer screens, and even early telephony in the late 19th century all caused health anxiety. More recently mobile phones and towers, wi-fi, and smart electricity meters have attracted virulent opposition focused on health problems.

In January I started collecting health claims attributed to wind turbine exposure. Within hours I'd found 50 often florid assertions about different conditions in humans and animals. Today my total sits at 198, with a range redolent of Old Testament plagues and pestilences. The list includes, and I quote: deaths (yes, many deaths, none of which have ever come to the attention of a coroner), various cancers, congenital malformations, and every manner of mental health problem.

But mostly it includes common health problems found in all communities, whether they have wind turbines or not. These include greying hair, energy loss, concentration lapses, weight gain and loss, and all the problems of ageing, the banalities of the human condition.

Sleep problems are most mentioned, but a third of the population suffers from insomnia, so no surprises there. Chickens won't lay near wind farms. Tell that the Tasmanian poultry farmer who has a turbine on site. Earthworms vanish from the soil in an 18-kilometre radius, hundreds of cattle and goats die horrible deaths from 'stray electricity', but veterinary officials are mysteriously never summonsed.

In 35 years in public health I have never encountered anything remotely as apocalyptic. I visited wind farms and compared their gentle swoosh to the noises that all city dwellers live with daily. Quickly this phenomenon began to tick all the psychogenic boxes. There are several reasons to suspect the unrecognised entity of wind turbine syndrome is psychogenic, a communicated disease spread by anti-wind interest groups, sometimes with connections to fossil fuel interests.

Wind farms first appeared about 20 years ago in the USA and have rapidly proliferated. There are now just shy of 200,000 turbines around the world, but the first recorded claims about diseases occurred a decade later when two rural doctors in Wales and Victoria made widely repeated claims that have never been published in any research journal. Turbines are said to cause both chronic conditions like, amazingly, lung and skin cancer, diabetes, multiple sclerosis and stroke, but importantly also acute symptoms. According to Australia's high priestess of wind turbine syndrome, Sarah Laurie, an unregistered doctor, these can commence within 20 minutes of exposure. If this was true, what happened in the early complaint-free years? Where are all the reports of sick people from the 1990s through to 2008 when the claims really took off?

An incredulous European wind industry sees the phenomenon as largely Anglophone, and even then it seems to only occur in particular regions and around certain farms and involve a small fraction of residents. Many wind farms have operated for years and never received a single complaint. Others, legendary for their vocal opponents even before the turbines commenced, are hotbeds of disease claims. So if turbines were intrinsically noxious, why do they cut such a selective disease path? Why do citizens of community owned turbines in places like Germany and Denmark rarely complain? Why are complaints unknown in Western Australia where wind farms have operated for many years, but virulent in several small eastern Australian communities?

Opponents readily concede that only a minority of those exposed report being ill, and explain this via the analogy of motion sickness; it only happens to those who are susceptible. How then to explain that whole regions and indeed nations have no susceptible residents? The key factor seems to be the presence or absence of anti-wind activists, generally visiting from outside the area. Farms with years of community acceptance can erupt with complaints when anti-wind activists arrive in town, spreading alarm and rolling out their laundry list of common health problems they insist are caused by turbines. Prominent among these in Australia are wealthy conservative landowners, appalled by the very visible presence of the tall green energy totems, a constant reminder of bucolic decay and the upstairs-downstairs disdain that they have for those needing the extra income from their often hilly, poorer quality land.

Indeed, money seems to be the magic antidote to the problem. Health complaints are rare among turbine hosts and from those financially benefiting from communal ownership arrangements. In Australia, depending upon the energy generated, a turbine can earn a host between $7,000 and $18,000 a year. Hosts speak of drought proofing their farms when several turbines are hosted. Health complainants tend to be neighbours who can see the turbines, don't like them, and dwell on their misfortune. The perceived injustice can eat away at some and become a preoccupation fermented by organised groups.

Wind companies report of residents approaching them with extensive renovation wish lists. One company told me of a request for a house to be removed to a lake shore, with a jetty thrown in. In rural Australia, residential buyouts from mining companies are common. Word spreads quickly about unsaleable shack owners who got lucky. So when a cashed up company appears in the district, it is understandable that some see their ticket out via protracted complaints.

A recent Canadian case collapsed when the tribunal agreed that complainants should provide their medical records going back 10 years. They refused, saying it would be too difficult to obtain the documentation that every doctor routinely keeps. Opponents claimed that turbine hosts are gagged by confidentiality clauses, so can't speak up about their illnesses. I've seen several contracts and, predictably, none say anything about the hosts shedding their common-law rights to claims of negligence. But the claim persists, with its subtext of ordinary country folk being exploited by fast talking company lawyers.

Apocryphal tales about large numbers of families having to abandon family homes are common. But mysteriously the numbers are never accompanied by address lists. Abandoning unsaleable properties is a sad part of rural decay. Fly in, fly out climate change denialists talk up the tragedy of such communities being ruined by wind farms, but they have no idea about the long-term rural exodus from such economically unviable settlements.

Previous modern health worries dissipated when the predicted health mayhem never eventuated and the feared toxic agents became thoroughly familiar, as they are today throughout much of Europe. Australian hysteria about mobile telephone towers had its heyday in the late 1990s, but is rare today. There are now 17 reviews of the evidence on harm, which are consistent in their assessment of insignificant risk. How long can this latest modern health worry last?

Robyn Williams: At least until the next election, no doubt. Simon Chapman is a professor of public health at the University of Sydney.

Andras Hidas :

George Crisp :

22 Oct 2012 1:14:16pm

Andras,

You could argue the best way, is to ensure full disclosure of chemicals, a detailed and independent study of unconventional petroleum / gas and its effects on groundwater / geology over a representative period of time, comprehensive air monitoring and health risk assessment.

But I think you also miss the point that there is no patho-physiological mechanism described by which wind can cause ill health. The same is certainly not true for fossil fuels. The relationship to toxicity and and air pollution is very well documented and highly significant.

Mulga Mumblebrain :

22 Oct 2012 3:37:27pm

Well said George. Fracking for coal seam gas, one presumes, involves the same toxic sludge used in fracking for shale gas. It is hard to be certain, of course, because this 'Frackenstein' monster hides behind the doctrine of 'commercial confidentiality' which, since its invention a couple of decades ago, allows our business Masters to operate without real scrutiny, behind its veil, and with the active complicity of politicians ever grateful for the political contributions made by business-men.

Frosty :

24 Oct 2012 7:22:02pm

Health issues from infrasound also come from large open-cut mining operations such as coal mining, from the use of heavy mobile equipment and processing infrastructure. Airport traffic, road traffic and the construction industry produce infrasound also. These activities occur in heavily populated areas. I'm all for comprehensive and unbiased studies into the impacts and health effects of infrasound but let's do the studies concurrently on all industries and all areas of our towns and cities where infrasound is potentially produced. I would love to see the results of such a study to compare all sources of infrasound.

Dr Sarah Laurie :

27 Oct 2012 12:16:31am

Frosty,

I completely agree with you. Urgent studies are needed across different forms of noise pollution, and so is transparency about what the actual levels of noise and vibration pollution are across all the frequencies. The noise polluters never give over the raw acoustic data to the residents, nor do they measure inside homes. The acoustic surveys always say the polluters are "compliant". Yet people are driven out of their homes by it, because they get so sick. I get asked for advice from people impacted by infrasound and low frequency noise from gas compressors used with CSG, from open cut and underground mines (eg coal mines in the upper Hunter), and gas fired power stations, where the compressor noise can emit ILFN. Sharyn Munro has written very eloquently about this in her fantastic book Rich Land Wasteland, Panmacmillan 2012, where Chapter five talks about some of the people impacted by ILFN from coal mining. It is appropriately called "Clearing the Country" because that is what it does. The symptoms are identical, as are the practices of the acousticians paid by the industry, and the confidentiality agreements.

Mulga Mumblebrain :

29 Oct 2012 8:15:04am

Exactly, Frosty. If infrasound is a health problem, and who can doubt that is a possibility, let its deleterious effects be examined in every situation. The focus on wind power alone, and the ignoring of all the other, profitable, sources of infrasound gives the anti-wind power hypocrites' game away. This is an attack on renewable energy by the hard Right who totally dominate our failing, greed-driven, economy (for the Right there is no society as their Goddess Thatcher told them). The Right have in recent years, here, in the USA, Canada, and UK (the usual suspects of Anglosphere Rightwing fanaticism) declared war on environmentalism, Green parties and the 'water-melon' environmentalists. Wind power is attacked for one reason above all- it represents resistance to total Rightwing dominance over the state and the prerogative of the rich to seek profit maximisation even if it produces the greatest ecological catastrophe in our history.

Trevor Best :

20 Oct 2012 2:15:59pm

Brilliant piece by Simon, and he could have also encompassed the opposition to CSG, which is led by two groups - the prideful dog-in-the-manger grandsons of the pioneers who don't want their bucolic lifestyle upset, and the "Lock the Gate" drop-outs who have had their gates locked for decades, concerned that nefarious lifestyles will be exposed. We only have to look at the economics to understand where the ultimate benefits lie. - There is no increase (e.g.) in the price of wheat above inflation for the last third of a century at least, and a similar story for milk. Arable land is used (250000 Ha in Australia for a frivolous purpose like wine grapes) for non-food production (also ethanol is implicated), so there is no economic evidence that we are running short of productive land. A coal mine , say, even on a weak deposit only 4m thick, will produce more wealth than a grain farm can match in 6/10,000 YEARS!. (And open cuts CAN be rehabilitated, cost $10,000/ha). We just have to do the sums.

Mulga Mumblebrain :

22 Oct 2012 3:42:55pm

CSG releases methane, a very powerful greenhouse gas, as fugitive emissions during extraction and transport. Then it is combusted for power, emitting more greenhouse gases. It is sold as a lesser evil than coal in its greenhouse emissions, but already studies are showing that, taking into account the fugitive methane releases, this proposition is not necessarily correct. In any case a lesser evil is still evil, and all hydrocarbons must be foregone as soon as possible, or climate destabilisation will end our civilization. Furthermore fracked gas is being used to delay and deter real renewables, and is a highly toxic process that greatly threatens water supplies in this country, which is water-challenged at the best of times.

David :

27 Oct 2012 10:43:28am

Mulga, Surely the idea is to burn as much of the methane as possible for commercial reasons? Once burnt, it is not methane any more. Organic cows, however, pass wind that is largely methane, but(t) most of it is not burnt.

Mulga Mumblebrain :

Neville Mattick :

20 Oct 2012 3:09:50pm

Wind Turbine Syndrome is purely the "politics of envy" and Climate Change Denial, in a mining land.

Of course, those that are disadvantaged should be able to share in the benefits to the local community (if they still deny the National Interest that is action on Climate Change) by some form of Social advantage, perhaps payment toward their annual power bill or rate bills.

CSIRO talk about this as a Social Licence to Operate in their recent work.

As our Society matures and adjusts to these 'fledgling' technologies the hysteria will die away as it has never emerged in other Continents such as Europe.

For me, get them on my land, yes there will be some disturbance, disruption and visual facts.

But you go through the day realising a humble Sheep Station is a power generator, and as you drive to town under the giant powerlines, realise that your land is powering homes well beyond the horizon.

That generation is sparing other more valuable land from exploration - who on Earth would not want that!

My late father was an innovative land manager, he would have embraced an 'externality' such Wind Energy with open arms, had he been alive to see it.

Mulga Mumblebrain :

22 Oct 2012 3:44:58pm

The hysteria is being relentlessly pushed by our version of Fox News- Murdoch's News Ltd and 'The Australian' in particular. As the very epicentre of hard Right ecological denialism, there is no chance whatsoever that 'The Australian' will give up on this jihad. None.

Neville Mattick :

Too true Mulga - and it is Farmer resenting Grazier (count me as one of them).

Policy of the NSW Farmers "we don't want wind farms" is clearly set out by denialists with the most to loose - if they ever wake up to it.

Can't work these guys out, the want to block the gas, coal and whatever else with no alternative generation system, at least the NSW Energy Minister seems to have seen a light recently with his big new shiny, free to consumers' Renewable Energy Action Plan.

As Professor Chapman points out the big farmers making the rules don't want the dirt poor Grazier to get a 'windfall' - period.

I don't think much of that as a peer I can tell you.

Anyway, I just ignore them, the most exciting point is to convert a basic sheep station into a high tech' power station on a tiny physical foot print that is a Wind Farm.

Mulga Mumblebrain :

04 Nov 2012 8:30:59am

'The Australian' was at it again yesterday, like a dog with its favourite bone, its so-called Environmental Editor (who remains utterly voiceless when it is the scores of real ecological disasters that need addressing) once again somehow deciding that the sham of wind-turbine induced disease is the supreme 'environmental' cause in the country. The bias and blatant propagandising are par for the course with News Corpse rags, but the cynical effrontery of it all still staggers.

Felicity Martin :

20 Oct 2012 3:37:41pm

I was appalled at the lack of academic basis for Simon Chapman's argument, it seems he can only assert what the industry has told him. And personal attacks are normally totally unacceptable in any academic argument.

His attacks on Dr Sarah Laurie are shameful, he must be fully aware of the reason why she at this time, chose not to keep up her registration and continue as the outstanding doctor she was and by her commitment to community health, is. Serious illness and a young family makes you sometimes defer a career that you are dedicated to.

If not, perhaps he could have had the decency to base his argument on peer reviewed evidence and perhaps a study based in an area within the recognised area of impact- 10 km of wind farms rather than within the 50 km, without any available statistical breakdown of distances, biased questions that typify industry bodies such as the Clean Energy Council . He seemed only to quote industry, so it is hardly surprising that bias is staggeringly evident in his negative framing trade-off titles inferring connections to drug money, psychogenic illness- and this from someone who is, and has never had medical qualifications, or the coal and nuclear industry.

Please, to keep the respect your show normally deserves, stick to academic arguments rather than shameful rhetoric.

Mulga Mumblebrain :

Simon Chapman :

22 Oct 2012 8:25:41pm

I have to admit I'm really perplexed at this one. Nothing I say about wind turbines and health should be believed because my undergraduate degree -- completed 40 years ago -- was not in medicine (this is apparently all one needs for credibility on anything to do with health). So how is it that I have been able to hoodwink my own university, the NHMRC, the WHO, the International Union Against Cancer, the British Medical Journal (who appointed me a specialist editor for 17 years), and numerous national & international award bodies over the years for my research and advocacy on smoking. Last time I looked that was a "medical" problem too. I even have email from Sarah Laurie commending me for all that work. Felicity, can you explain how I'm able to be authoritative on tobacco & health but a not to be trusted on wind farms and health. And please, be careful. I have no connections with the wind industry.

Mulga Mumblebrain :

23 Oct 2012 5:01:09pm

Simon, you do not have the 'Right' opinions, so you must be a 'water-melon' or some other Leftist monster. Opposition to environmentalism is a real, fanatic, religion on the Right, and once the droogs get their orders from our Fox-News, 'The Australian' they bark in harmony. And you are despised because you aided the fight against the tobacco industry, a great source of lovely profits and, hence, sacrosanct to the Right.

George Papadopoulos :

23 Oct 2012 9:35:27pm

So if I concur with Chapman's logic, one can do whatever undergraduate degree they wish, but their post graduate experience "makes" the public health expert? The problem however lies in the perception that a public health expert is someone of a medical background. It seems that is a mis-perception that Chapman enjoys rather than corrects.

Simon Chapman :

23 Oct 2012 5:47:13pm

Hi Felicity. I hope you can help me through this one. You & George are a bit animated that my undergraduate degree (undertaken 40 years ago) was not in medicine. The absence of this apparently self-evidently means that nothing I say about wind turbines and health has any credibility. Nothing I've done or learned in the subsequent 40 years is as important as me not having an undergraduate degree in medicine. Is it OK with you that I continue to do my tobacco control work? Or is that an area just for people with first degrees in medicine too? Can you send me a deintentified wind farm contract showing me the gag clauses please.

Keith Thomas :

24 Oct 2012 3:50:24pm

Simon, have you visited people who complain about wind turbines (for the full range of reasons: sound, infrasound, whatever) in their homes, at times when they report the turbines are affecting them? Preferably with an acoustic engineer using appropriate measuring equipment. If not you, then someone else with an open, curious mind whose report has been accepted by the people visited.

Bob Surete :

01 Nov 2012 11:36:23pm

What a joke! Chapman would only visit those poor souls whose lives are being destroyed by turbine noise and vibration, if he was paid to do so. Not sure that his mates at the Clean Energy Council would pay for him to actually do some real research.

Geoff Henderson :

26 Oct 2012 1:06:01pm

Felicity your passion is very evident. But be wary about spraying the very respected Simon Chapman. Get a cup of tea and read his Bio from here: http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/assets/pdfs/publications/CV.pdf

Lots of insight into the professor. If that is not enough to give him cred, than maybe come right out and say what your credibility rules really are. George Papadopoulos I would offer the same suggestion to you as well.

Murray May :

20 Oct 2012 5:54:34pm

What is dangerous about Chapman’s use of psychogenic theory is that all manner of technology (e.g. industrial wind turbines, mobile phone towers, Wi-Fi) can be declared benign, when more detailed knowledge of the areas in question suggests the opposite.

Likewise for Wi-Fi, public health professor Dr David Carpenter (State University of New York) and a well informed world authority on the issue draws on a substantial body of scientific literature to demonstrate the associated health hazards, for example in school students exposed in Wi-Fi-equipped schools e.g. his declaration on a Portland, Oregon court case is available on the web.

Health concerns are increasingly raised about the wireless smart meters. Yet the industry concerned claims that the adverse health effects are because of what people have heard, and as a result are worrying themselves sick. In contrast, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine has released a cautionary statement against smart meter installation due to potentially harmful radiofrequency exposure, and states that electromagnetic sensitivity is a growing problem worldwide.

Chapman’s use of a one size fits all psychogenic theory is both overworked and simplistic. Its application to the adverse health effects associated with wind turbines is similarly well off track.

Jonathan Maddox :

22 Oct 2012 3:25:21pm

Isn't it bizarre that mobile phone *towers* have been regarded as cause to fear, when 99% of the people who object to them actually hold their own mobile telephones to their heads for several minutes each day or more, transmitting microwave radiation (qualitatively identical to that transmitted by the tower, of course) at point-blank range.

Electromagnetic radiation diminishes with the square of the distance from the transmitter. Even at the foot of a tower, your entire body absorbs less radiation from the tower each minute than your ear does from your own phone. Sleep a hundred metres from the base of the tower, and your body absorbs less radiation from the tower overnight than your brain does in the course of a one-minute phone call.

Yet there have never been protests against mobile phones themselves, nor even phone sales outlets, that I've noticed. Surely if mobile phone radiation were any cause for concern (and I'm not convinced it isn't), protesters should be calling out the phone stores as pushers of addictive carcinogenic devices?

By the same token, all the same kinds of noises as wind turbines make are also produced by the wind rushing past buildings or trees, or even by vehicles moving along roads, aircraft, waves on the seashore, etc. Not quite as similar as the similarity between phones and phone towers, of course -- you can tell the difference if you listen -- but similar enough that it's highly doubtful that any one of these sources can cause damages that the others don't.

Simon Chapman :

22 Oct 2012 8:05:20pm

Murray sounds like a quintessential technophobe. I wonder if he has a mobile phone and a shield on the computer screen he used to type his contribution? Australia has a more mobile telephone accounts than people, meaning many have more than one. Here's an Australian Institute of Health & welfare graph of brain cancer incidence from 1980 to the present. Looks pretty flatline to me. http://twitpic.com/91pu82Must be a conspiracy to cover it up? ;)

Murray May :

23 Oct 2012 4:34:39pm

Simon comes across as the quintessential apologist for the wind industry, rather than as a professor of public health. If he had some medical and biological training, I could perhaps take him more seriously. I suggest he follow up on the document I referred to by professor of public health, Dr David Carpenter, who is a medical doctor with considerable depth of knowledge in the biological area and can afford to comment meaningfully on these matters. Attempting (but failing) to have subject depth in all these areas using the psychogenic theory as a cover just doesn't work.

Neville Mattick :

22 Oct 2012 8:13:12pm

What has RF (Radio Frequency) radiation to do with Wind Turbines? Wind Turbines don't emit death rays do they? Anyway, as far as RF is concerned, the radiation from a mobile phone is vastly more than that from the cell tower, users' are not declining to use them even if given this fact.

RF signals on a ground wave decline by the inverse square law and if action is wanted on radiation examine the AM, VHF and UHF signals for broadcasting in and around towns and cities, transmitters which emit continuously - no comparison, no protest groups appear about them (thank goodness there isn't or there'd be no RN from my speaker).

My Station is a strong pointer to the decline in production and climate change, continue to deny your source of food, clean water, clean air and the reader will be in trouble, given that every Australian's environmental footprint is about 8Ha.

This hysteria about a simple stick of steel with some blades at the top is way off track of the facts and National Interest.

Dr Mark Donohoe :

20 Oct 2012 6:22:35pm

Robyn,

Seriously?! That vitriolic and misinformed diatribe of Simon's passed of as Science? Give me a break. I have patients affected by the entire PROCESS (community and auditory) whose health has been very badly affected. They are just people who have had to move out of the areas because of the problems.

Of course the problems are things like headaches, poor sleep, rashes and depression - worsening of these common problems can make life terrible for the few, and Simon's vitriol only stands to worsen their plight as people who benefit from wind turbines hurl it at these people and blame them for their illness.

Shame on Simon. That was not Science, but it WAS potentially harmful to the health of many who do not fit his petrochemical conspiracy hypothesis.

Maybe Simon would benefit from some clinical experience with suffering patients before he launches his next salvo.

Craig Thomas :

George Papadopoulos :

20 Oct 2012 9:53:44pm

Just one more “impressive” piece by Simon Chapman. Before anyone believes anything this man says they ought to examine his ways of science. I give several examples below:Chapman says that “wind turbine opponents” claim that wind turbines cause: “yes, many deaths” Yet the source that Chapman quotes not mention this in regards to wind turbines, but known hazards of vibrations and low frequency noise documented by Portuguese researchers over the last 30 years. See: http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wind-power-and-ecology/. The author of this article, Max Whisson, also happens to be an innovator in renewables including other wind turbine models…“Chickens won’t lay eggs near wind farms”. Chapman refuses to put this into context. This claim comes from Waterloo with regards to the 37, 3megawatt turbines. The Tasmanian poultry farmer has installed only one 225 kilowatt turbine – 500 times smaller in total capacity, and more than 10 times smaller in individual turbine size. If one had the choice of putting up with the noise of a small car vs. a massive truck, which would most likely cause problems?Chapman says in this interview that “earthworms vanish from the soil in an 18km radius”. Yet checking his own list “earthworms leave the soil near wind turbines” at http://ramblingsdc.net/windsymptoms.html. Notice how different the statement, but he chooses to blow it out of proportion for the sake of ridicule.“In 35 years in public health I have never met anything so apocalyptic”. I would suggest one go to the TGA website and search for what health professionals have reported with Roaccutane. These certainly eclipses the claims made against wind turbines with regards to human health and yet most are considered probable side effects: http://www.tga.gov.au/daen/daen-entry.aspx. I suggest that Chapman’s long experience in public health must have been rather selective…Chapman says that “New technology has long attracted concerns over health problems…” Yet a little later: Wind farms appeared some 20 years ago in the US. There are now just shy of 200,000 turbines globally. But the first recorded claims that they caused disease came a decade later.” In the New Scientist article Chapman mentioned that this delay created “Temporal problems”. So do problems with wind turbines start when they are installed due to mass hysteria or when doctors draw the attention of people to the their declining health and associate this with wind turbines?In conclusion, Chapman ought to be questioned over everything he says. He can’t be trusted. He has a track record of promoting the “health” of the wind industry, not public health with relation to the threats posed by wind turbines.

Jonathan Maddox :

Murray May :

23 Oct 2012 5:10:44pm

The larger turbines produce more low frequency noise, and infrasound and low frequency noise are implicated in the adverse health effects being observed. So therefore not only do we have the additive effects of more wind farms in an area, but there is also an increased low frequency noise burden from the larger turbines. For more info, check out the paper by Møller and Pedersen Low-frequency noise from large wind turbines J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 129 (6), June 2011

George Papadopoulos :

Simon Chapman :

22 Oct 2012 7:56:01pm

George Papadopoulos lives near the busy Hume Highway near Yass (not a breach of privacy,a fact easily found on the Web). He believes he is affected by turbines located 35km away. This is the distance of the Sydney CBD to Blacktown. He is apparently highly sensitive. He also has problems with citations. My reference to earthworms leaving the soil was from the Max Whisson paper he approvingly cites, not from the one he says I took it from. And his veneration of the Portuguese "vibroacoustic disease" researchers should gain some perspective from this. http://hdl.handle.net/2123/8362

George Papadopoulos :

23 Oct 2012 8:54:53pm

Chapmanian mathematics and comparisons always surprise me. So how close is close? Is 15km close to the highway? Or is 35km close to the wind turbines? Nothing down at the highway protrudes up 150m in the sky line and spins at 240km/h! But in any case it's all worms! Chapman won't even correct the way he publicly misreprents and distorts basic facts: May he answer the question: Where did Max Whisson make a report of earthworms leaving the soil 18km away from wind turbines?

Simon Chapman :

25 Oct 2012 7:32:45am

Readers may be interested to read about George's growing abilities to hear wind turbines at extraordinary distances. With these skills, surely its time he made himself available to science? http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/assets/Distances.docx

George Papadopoulos :

Chapman never ceases to amaze me with his distortions of fact. The letter on the homeopathy site is an open letter to the PM, hosted by one of the many recipients at her discretion!

What has me curious about Chapman, is a comment by his fellow pro-wind academic Professor Colby on ABC radio: At the 7th minute (see link below): Colby says:

“Infrasound or extremely low frequency sound travels very long distances; around the world really. And there is no evidence that infrasound is any greater in the vicinity of wind turbines than it is elsewhere, and in fact out brains and our ears are designed not to respond to that at all.”

So is there any discrepancy between the logic of Colby and Chapman? Perhaps not that much, apart from audible vs the infrasound spectrums.

Just check out the dBA noise graph on Chapman’s document and it reveals that the audible noise level of wind turbines approaches infinity distance somewhere between 30 and 40 dBA...

The noise levels on my property are much quieter than 30dbA except when the wind is howling.

Given the combination of Chapman’s wind industry graph and Colby’s assertion, one could consider my worst case scenario estimates of 100km rather conservative.

Simon Chapman :

26 Oct 2012 1:39:45pm

George, if you are embarrassed by your letter appearing on a homeopathy website, here's an idea: contact them and ask for it to be taken down. You'll be pleased to know your bionic abilities are spawning some global calculations about who should be affected by infrasound from turbines. http://etwasluft.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/wind-turbine-syndrome-end-times-are-nigh.html

I just love your work George. I want as many people as possible to hear your ideas.

George Papadopoulos :

26 Oct 2012 8:09:50pm

Well my dear Simon, “Taos hum”: Does that sound familiar? A low frequency noise phenomenon acknowledged by your friend Geoff Levanthall. I suggest you research this topic a little bit before you start realising badly some areas of the world are affected by industrialisation and LFN emissions.

With regards to my open letter, it’s an open letter. It is a message I want to convey anywhere and everywhere. Feel free to publish my open letters in total on your website too. If you haven't got the full number of them please feel free to request them.

Meanwhile, I am certainly not embarrassed about my open letters on any website. Nor am I embarrassed about the Queen's choice to use homeopathy. Nor am I embarrassed about homeopathy being a registered profession and taught in universities as a subject. Nor am I embarrassed by the fact that most pharmacies sell homeopathic products. But I do certainly think YOU are embarrassment to the academic world.

It just so happens that your comments on the homeopathic website are designed to paint me as a nutty individual. Despite that I have clarified how my letter got there on previous comments sections, you choose to continue your claims that I “write on homeopathic sites”.

Anyway, thank you for your suggestions. Meanwhile, I suggest you clarify your lapses of logic which I point out in the comments section of this webpage. You are a professor and accountable for anything comments you make. If you don’t feel accountable, then perhaps some will excuse you because you certainly don’t have any medical qualification.

Julie Gray :

21 Oct 2012 7:33:01am

This is typical of proponents of wind industrial turbines. People should do their own homework as what this person is saying is completely untrue. Go to web sites Country Guardians, (UK) and wind watch you will then see the facts of wind turbine sickness. Julie Gray

George Papadopoulos :

22 Oct 2012 6:55:37pm

The complaints about wind turbine are predominantly with respect to what goes on in people's homes - not spending time outdoors near the towers.

You also need to question how noise propagates, its various components and why the noise from wind turbines causes so much annoyance - not so much when you stand underneath them as opposed to trying to sleep or relax in a peaceful and quiet environment.

My sensitive ears are at times highly annoyed by the low frequency noise, which is on occasion rather distressing - in the worst case scenario it sounds like a rumbling diesel engine and makes my ear drums resonate. I am 35km from the closest mass wind farm...

Mulga Mumblebrain :

29 Oct 2012 8:22:54am

May I cut to the chase? If wind power is destroyed, what process do you prefer as an energy source to replace the burning of fossil fuels? I take it that you are not an anti-science zealot, and do acknowledge the rapid climate destabilisation being caused by the emission of greenhouse gases by the burning of fossil fuels. By how many orders of magnitude do you think that the victims of climate destabilisatiopn will outnumber those of wind power turbines? I'd say at least seven or eight, myself.

Doug Evans :

27 Oct 2012 7:32:46pm

All this mention of 'Wind Watch' prompted me to have a bit of a look around on the site. Typically of such sites Wind Watch fudges the answer to the question. 'Who funds you?' However it is direct in stating. 'The fact is that wind power does not and can not contribute significantly to our electricity needs.'and'NWW simply recognizes that wind power has and will ever have only the most minimal ability to mitigate the human causes of global warming.'

Now they are either woefully ignorant or deliberately misleading. The easily obtained facts are as follows:

Worldwide there are now many thousands of wind turbines operating, with a total capacity of 238,351 MW as of end 2011. The European Union alone passed some 100,000 MW capacity in September 2012, while US surpassed 50,000 MW in August 2012 and State Grid of China passed 50,000 MW the same month. World wind generation capacity more than quadrupled between 2000 and 2006, doubling about every three years. The United States pioneered wind farms and led the world in installed capacity in the 1980s and into the 1990s. In 1997 German installed capacity surpassed the U.S. and led until once again overtaken by the U.S. in 2008. China has been rapidly expanding its wind installations in the late 2000s and passed the U.S. in 2010 to become the world leader.

At the end of 2011, worldwide nameplate capacity of wind-powered generators was 238 gigawatts (GW), growing by 41 GW over the preceding year. 2010 data from the World Wind Energy Association, an industry organization states that wind power now has the capacity to generate 430 TWh annually, which is about 2.5% of worldwide electricity usage. Between 2005 and 2010 the average annual growth in new installations was 27.6 percent. Wind power market penetration is expected to reach 3.35 percent by 2013 and 8 percent by 2018. Several countries have already achieved relatively high levels of penetration, such as 28% of stationary (grid) electricity production in Denmark (2011), 19% in Portugal (2011), 16% in Spain (2011), 14% in Ireland (2010) and 8% in Germany (2011). As of 2011, 83 countries around the world were using wind power on a commercial basis.

Europe accounted for 48% of the world total wind power generation capacity in 2009. In 2010, Spain became Europe's leading producer of wind energy, achieving 42,976 GWh. Germany held the top spot in Europe in terms of installed capacity, with a total of 27,215 MW as of 31 December 2010.

This is emissions free generation. Doubling every 3 years! Globally 8% of demand by 2018! Maybe 14% by 2020! Maybe 30% by 2025! ‘The most minimal ability to mitigate the human causes of global warming’ indeed. Lies and rubbish!! Wake up you lot before its too late.

Murray May :

22 Oct 2012 2:20:19pm

An addendum: Correcting one impression given by Simon Chapman. From what he says, one might conclude that opposition to wind power is confined to English speaking countries. Not so. A long list of groups opposing wind power from around the world is available at www.wind-watch.org/alerts/2012/03/31/april-3-international-day-of-protest-against-industrial-wind

For example, the European Platform against Windfarms (epaw.org) now has 557 member organisations, from 24 countries, including Germany and Denmark.

Moreover, most groups are not climate change denying at all, but are concerned about adverse health effects, and landscape and wildlife impacts.

Murray May :

23 Oct 2012 5:21:09pm

Are you claiming that people concerned about birds and bats being killed, including many conservation groups, and environmentalists concerned about the defacing of ridgelines in Vermont in the USA, are agents of the fossil fuel industry? This is just illogical in the extreme.

EoR :

25 Oct 2012 1:59:09pm

Murray, I trust you are also campaigning to have the electricity grid shut down and power lines removed. According to Erickson, Johnson and Young (USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-191. 2005) power lines contribute to 13.7% of annual avian mortality. We should also get rid of buildings since they cause 58.2% of mortalities. Wind turbines? Less than 0.01%.

Murray May :

25 Oct 2012 3:43:28pm

Are you talking about taking down transmission lines being put up to serve wind turbines? The following article on wind turbines in Scotland says that in the rush to meet industrial wind targets, massive pylons and transmission lines are blighting the countryside. More at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9366706/Wind-farm-pylons-steel-giants-of-the-glens.html The pic at the beginning is a preview apparently of what awaits much of wild Britain if this madness continues.

Mulga Mumblebrain :

25 Oct 2012 6:59:33pm

Steady on EoR- facts are anathema to the Right, particularly when they are waging one of their cultural jihads against the evil 'Greenies'. Behind all this bulldust lie the usual suspects, the Rightwing MSM, with the Murdoch apparatus and 'The Australian' to the fore, the political Right ( out to harvest the rich bounty of the Dunning-Kruger vote)and the fossil fuel industry. You see, renewable sources of energy, necessary to avert climate destabilisation catastrophe, will end the capitalist system, by rendering the tens of trillions of fossil fuel assets worthless. In a choice between that mountain of loot and the future of their own, and everybody else's, children, the Right do not even hesitate to choose the money. It's not in their nature.

simon chapnan :

25 Oct 2012 4:03:21pm

Murray -- I wonder why the website for Australia's leading anti wind farm group the Waubra Foundation was registered by a mining investment company. http://t.co/zItcpSRVLooks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like one.. maybe it is a duck?

Murray May :

26 Oct 2012 10:20:54am

Frank Campbell further down in these posts says “Chapman regurgitates the same piece of crude propaganda repeatedly”. The repetition theme is very close to quacking I think. Don’t you ever get sick of being on these blog type things just repeating the same psychogenic message over and over? Particularly when it has nothing to do with reality.

Doug Evans :

27 Oct 2012 7:00:11pm

"Don’t you ever get sick of being on these blog type things just repeating the same psychogenic message over and over? Particularly when it has nothing to do with reality."Murray your qualifications for dismissing Simon's arguments are …??

George Papadopoulos :

Murray May :

29 Oct 2012 4:16:06pm

Have a PhD in environmental field, also Masters in psychological area, so have knowledge of that field too. Original degree First Class Honours in Chemistry. Have worked since the 70s on environmental and environmental health issues in the federal bureaucracy in various departments, including Environment Department. More recently academia. Also a range of community groups over the years. The Chapman argument is simplistic and dangerous as I argue in my other comments on this site. Have been considering in more detail the wind turbine issue over the last year.

Murray May :

29 Oct 2012 4:23:51pm

No I am no climate change denier, and this demonstrates the weakness of the arguments presented by some comments made here. My PhD paid considerable attention to climate change issues, and I also worked on climate change in a professional sense back in the late 80s when the issue first received prominence in the media. Wrote a number of speeches on it for Graham Richardson when he was Environment Minister. I support solar initiatives, but the disadvantages of big industrial wind are far too great. The logic of assuming that climate change denial and opposition to wind turbines go together is flawed.

George Papadopoulos :

26 Oct 2012 10:20:01pm

Simon, I'm sure that those who falsely assumed you were a medical professor, going back and forth to RPAH seeing patients etc, will also see the quack in the lameness of your qualifications, particularly when it comes to diagnostic and clinical credentials.

Dr Sarah Laurie :

27 Oct 2012 12:51:48am

Simon, that would be because Peter Mitchell, the founder of the Waubra Foundation registered the name. As you know, Peter has a background in oil exploration, and has business interests in the mining industry. He also has a long history of involvement in medical research organisations and has a real interest in this. Perhaps you are unaware, that Peter was the Chairman of the National Stroke Foundation for years, and is a Governor on the Florey Neurosciences institute. It was his work in this area which attracted me to work with him to establish the Waubra Foundation, which on request assists people impacted by infrasound and low frequency noise from a number of sources, including coal mines, gas compressors used with CSG, gas fired power stations, as well as wind turbines. The symptoms, and patterns of exposure, are identical in many respects to those reported by people affected by operating wind turbines. this is not surprising to those trained in science, as the physical forces are very similar.

Pat Griffin :

01 Nov 2012 11:49:05pm

Not sure Sarah why you engage with Chapman, he is our local answer to Goebels and his propaganda is just as dangerous. His assertions and distortions are portrayed as fact, and he refuses to visit any people who are affected by turbines. I have made the offer to take him for a visit, but he only seeks to abuse and grandstand.

Mulga Mumblebrain :

29 Oct 2012 8:30:00am

Many are, of course. The growth of phony 'astroturf' so-called 'environmental' groups that are financed by business interests to undermine real environmentalists and serve business ambitions is well-known. The furore over bird and bat deaths has been cynically overblown, and other, far greater causes of avian fatalities ignored where business prerogatives are involved. And the climate destabilisation caused by greenhouse emissions, which will worsen if wind power is destroyed, will kill vastly greater numbers of every type of living creature, including us. This is cynical humbug at its vilest.

George Papadopoulos :

Neil Barrett :

28 Oct 2012 10:18:04am

Murray May, A Few months ago I took a good long hard look at German and Danish wind opposition websites. You can read about it at: http://masg.org.au/projects/communitywind/more-info/Despite Germany having 45 times more Kw of windpower per square kilometre than Victoria, complaints about adverse health effects are rare indeed. Windkraftgegner.de lists 85 of the websites referred to by EPAW. On examination with the aid of google translate I found that 41 had lapsed or were completely irrelevant to windpower (which casts doubt on the validity of the rest of the 557 EPAW sites you refer to). Of the remaining 44, 17 mentioned health effects in no more than 2 lines, 13 devoted more than 2 lines (but rarely more than two paras) and 14 made no mention of health effects at all. However, all 44 sites mentioned the impact of turbines on landscape and wildlife which are clearly the major causes of concern in Germany. Statements of politicians from all major parties confirm this lack of concern about alleged health effects as does analysis of newspaper reports on windpower.

Murray May :

29 Oct 2012 12:51:12pm

See my recent post about Denmark and health related adverse consequences further down in these comments. Current politicians very concerned about wind turbines include Senators Chris Back, Nick Xenophon, and John Madigan. They have made a number of public statements on the issue. There have also been speeches in the House of Reps. Statements about the landscape and wildlife aspects need to be taken seriously as well. These monstrosities are spreading across the landscape making one big mess. In Scotland, the tourism lobby is very concerned. People come to see wild Scotland, not a bunch of turbines.

Neil Barrett :

05 Nov 2012 1:53:07pm

A number of points in reply: 1. Germany obviously has a much bigger wind industry than Denmark so why not deal with my argument?. (My paper also looks at Denmark where complains about noise and health effects are also very rare. the main Danish wind opposition group is primarily concerned with landscape issues). 2. When I referred to politicians in my post I meant German and Danish politicians. Unlke Madigan and Xenophon , quite a few of those I quote from across the political spectrum are leaders in very powerful parties. 3. Yes, statements about landscape and nature protection need to be considered but Simon Chapman's paper was about health effects and this is what I thought we were discussing. .

Neil Barrett :

05 Nov 2012 1:59:21pm

George, complaints about noise in Europe appear to be confined to around 5-10% of the nearby residents, with serious complaints being at the lower end. See the Massachusetts inquiry report of earlier this year. This to me makes wind power pretty attractive compared with fossil fuels an nuclear. My reading of German and Danish websites as well as inquiries to polititians in those countries and reading of major weekly magazines like Der Spiegel indicates that noise is a very minor issue as are the claims of health effects which arise from noise or other causes.

bob :

22 Oct 2012 8:21:57pm

This reminds me of the lady who asked me if I knew what was in the diet drink I was drinking, "yes I do", I replied and then proceeded to explain to her all the interesting metabolic products of the fine red wine she was enjoying. Try explaining to someone with a mobile phone in their pocket that you are getting more radiation from them than the nearby mobile phone tower. Are the subsonic vibration from wind generators more dangerous (or annoying) than those from elephant communications, perhaps we should shoot all the elephants. Is a coal mine in Margaret River better than acres of forest cleared for vineyards (grape juice and meths would do just as well). Are nuclear reactors good for the environment? Well of course they are, the dodgier the better, just ask the creatures of the Chernobyl wildlife park or the 3-eyed tuna that won't get caught, they're just bad for humans. Are you allowed to complain about a wind generator and yet fly your light plane (they don't have mufflers do they) over other peoples land (I know someone). We must always ask ourselves why people are complaining, sometimes it is legitimate, sometimes it is vested interest and sometimes they are just misled.

EoR :

23 Oct 2012 1:50:45pm

When dubious interest groups produce propaganda arguing that new technology is causing a plethora of unrelated health problems I start to suffer headaches, dizziness, sleeplessness, high blood pressure, anxiety and depression. We should therefore demand these groups stop their activities until all the science is in. Of course, once Christopher Monckton finally (if ever) reveals his Great Big Cure for Every Known Disease we won't need doctors at all...

John Rainmaker :

23 Oct 2012 7:11:09pm

Confession: I have joined with friends who restored a historic homestead with heritage garden and views to match to oppose their far-from-poor neighbours' land having windpower towers erected which would ruin the view of and from the heritage property for as long as they existed. However, I don't have any trouble believing the health problems are largely or almost wholly psychogenic given the long history of hysterias, including suffering from spells which must have been the consequence of witchcraft....

But, equally, I wouldn't have any trouble believing serious evidence of infra sound causing problems. There is no doubt that neighbours of nightclubs and pubs with bands suffer from the very low frequency sounds even if there is a mental connection to the ultimate physical distress.

The real vice of wind farms is that their contribution to energy supply is grossly uneconomic and always will be unlike, probably, solar power in its various forms. (Afterthought: can anyone make a case for windpower being economically stored, e.g. by pumping water up for use in hydro-electric peak load power? If it was feasible and economic I'm surprised it hasn't become widespread). So taxpayers and electricity consumers pay for the high costs of wind power. Why?

Assuming it contributes, expensively, to reducing CO2 in the atmosphere why is it a good thing for Australia to do that compared with being rich enough to do something to adapt and help others to adapt to whatever China, India and the USA are going to inflict on us in the way of climate change?

Of course climate changes and it looks as though the natural warming which got us out of the Little Ice Age from about 1750 onward may not have stopped. Nothing we can do will affect the natural changes which have been occurring for thousands of the years within the Holocene and of course in many periods before the end of the last major Ice Age. But, even if it is foolish for Australians to waste money in a futile attempt to reduce the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, is there, nonetheless, reason to worry about it? Not if some of the most recent papers suggesting that the major cause of increased CO2 in the atmosphere is emission from (warmer) oceans and not fossil fuel burning. Not too difficult to believe given that there is hundreds of times as much CO2 in the oceans as in the atmosphere and it is known that the big past increases in CO2 in the atmosphere have followed the warming. Of course you are unlikely to find those who rejoice in that curious description "climate scientist" (because they know about tree-rings, ice cores or maybe are mathematical modelers with no experience of experimental science) admitting that they have been well paid to dig a bigger and bigger hole which will have nothing in it by the time it comes for them to be honoured with the title Emeritus.

Gederts Skerstens :

24 Oct 2012 3:16:38pm

With a bit of luck, this yap-era could finally end.Obama gets tipped out, together with his inspiring and meaningless "Yes we can!".Julia gets tipped out, demolishing imaginary sexists and misogynists with great noise.

It won't be enough for a normal government to take charge, just balancing the budget, as usual. The budget for once is secondary. The Culture of Yap has to be stopped; PC in every section of our society, the culture of entitlement, or victimhood, where lawyers close down playgrounds or bowling clubs; getting arrested for speaking your mind, an education system that makes a point of producing ignorance. The bleeding budget is trivial, right now. Make it clear to the pollies what We want, then vote. Eleventh hour.

Mulga Mumblebrain :

25 Oct 2012 7:03:46pm

Just so long as we follow the siren song of our Baltic fascist betters, and let the rich run everything. I mean the 'free market' has been a smashing success in Latvia, what with the populace reduced to penury, and that favourite folk-art, fascism, making a welcome return to historically fertile ground-why not impose it here? We have a lot of enthusiastic and willing gauleiters just waiting for the opportunity.

Mulga Mumblebrain :

Geoff Henderson :

26 Oct 2012 1:00:16pm

@John RainmakerJohn I should point out that South Australia produces around 30% of it's electricity from renewables, most of that from wind turbines. Secondly, SA expects to lower its electricity charges next year.Thirdly it is, or already has, decommissioning a coal-fired power station. As I see it, this supports the concept of renewables both in quantity, price and in terms of reduced pollution. If you want to see un-economic power, try building a new brown coal power station and try to jump over the enormous compliance issues and still produce cheap electricity. This is why governments support renewables (OK Victoria is different). Truth is, conventional power is not costed taking into account the full environmental costs.

Craig Thomas :

19 Sep 2013 9:21:29am

John, your complaints about windpower are about a decade out of date. Windpower is in fact one of the most efficient methods of generating electricity.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested

Frank Campbell :

Instead of treating the GPs who report wind turbine-related illness as whistleblowers, he ridicules them.

Chapman is the antithesis of science.

As a Greens supporter, I'm appalled by the hypocrisy manifest in the ruthless imposition of wind turbines on defenceless rural communities vs the correct (if belated) support for victims of coal seam gas.

We need to examine the age/class cohort which is generating this hypocrisy: the links between Williams, Chapman, Andrew Fowler etc. These popularisers/propagandists/journalists regard themselves as progressive, combating moronic/reactionary forces. But this time it's the reverse: they propagandise on behalf of corporate and state power, and in favour of the wealthiest rural landowners.

Simon Chapman :

26 Oct 2012 1:48:05pm

I thought this was the Science Show page, not the Hamster Wheel feedback page, Frank. Your joke about the cabal of progressives propping up state power was really funny! The Ballieu & O'Farrell governments' deep love for wind farms is of course legendary. BTW, do you have that list of Australian rural residents forced off their land, or some de-inentified contacts with evil wind energy companies with the gag clauses in them? I've been asking around everywhere, but no one seems to have them.

Craig Thomas :

mal barr :

24 Oct 2012 7:16:06pm

Simon chapman says he is suffering the shock of the new as he has never encountered such a set of reactions to environmental triggers. The diagnosis is as old as the hills -as he himself says --Diagnosis is the acute on chronic stress disorder -physical and mental post traumatic anxiety, and autonomic nervous system arousal with neurological dysfunction ie instability-- ie physical symptoms of neurological-headaches etc and rheumatological assocaited with PTSd. This is so common that there is a full industry based on stress disorders. the molecular biology has also become obvious too to protein biochemists ie it is logically scientific. If Simon needs more help he can contact me at bravenewlogic@yahoo.com.au

Tilman Baumann :

26 Oct 2012 1:16:23am

Thanks Simon Chapman for staying around and exposing some of the critics who of course could not lower their heads in shame but rather spread exactly the insane claims which you just so eloquently (and rightfully angry) disputed in this open forum.

I chuckled. Must be old friends here. :)

Thanks for putting up with this crap. I all too often turn away when the fabric or reason and reality is being attacked by the damaged minds of esoteric crackpots. Somebody should offer help to those people, but short of that we should at least make sure they don't get too much of a forum.

Justine Parer :

Craig Thomas :

Frank Campbell :

27 Oct 2012 6:49:32pm

If anyone is tempted to hand out names and addresses of wind turbine victims to Chapman, don't. He is in no sense a researcher. In fact Chapman merely repeats a few facile points on this subject. His tone is akin to a Crikey troll.

Chapman thinks he can reprise his well-worn schtick, which is to thump an enemy so universally despised there's zero risk. His reputation is based solely on harrassing Big Tobacco. There's courage for you, boyo. What's next, Chapman, voluble denunciations of slavery? Capital punishment? Tirades against swimming pool fences?

Chapman gets unstinting coverage in the media because of his position: a university chair in "public health". But he's such a lightweight he has to be tethered to it. No chair, no Chapman. Exit, Mr Bean...

Cigarettes now bore people witless,so the risk-averse Chapman needs a new target. He stumbled on wind turbines very recently. His first foray was truly comic, as he exhibited his total ignorance of the subject (on Crikey). Even seasoned Crikey trolls were embarrassed. But Chapperson has a thick skin. There's still no trace of research, no interest whatever in the arcane world of turbine technology, low frequency noise...nothing. Just derision spread like vegemite on a handful of banal assumptions.

I have no idea to what extent people are made ill by turbine stress or turbine noise. You'd think a "Professor of Public Health" would be circumspect. You'd think that the precedents of asbestos, tobacco, diesel etc would give pause to anyone. You'd think that Chapman would know that corporations invariably hide, obfuscate and lie when their interests are threatened. You'd think that Chapman would recognise the intense cult-like nature of climate millenarianism, and the unsavoury link between corporate greed and climate extremism. The Jones, Bolts, Williams, Hamiltons and Chapmans think it's a war, and we know what the first casualty is...

Chapman will never conduct fieldwork amongst wind turbine victims. You can bet your Chair on it.

Ozeb :

20 Nov 2012 11:38:00am

To intentionally refer to Professor Chapman as "Chapperson" is beneath contempt. It says more about you, Frank Campbell, than it does about the professor. Indeed, your whole response was more ad hominem than factual.I'd encourage you to argue the facts.

George Papadopoulos :

29 Oct 2012 2:33:15pm

Doug your list of papers is rather short. Selective taste for literature perhaps? You might benefit from broader opinions on the matter. I suggest you read the submission of Drs Alan and Colleen Watts on the Collector wind farm. Pay careful attention to the references it cites: http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/noise-and-health-collector-wind-farm/

The triggers for the physiological stress reaction are environmental exposures or stimulants ie physiological trauma or stress. That is why Simon Chapman's list of environmental shocks in past 100 years was so elucidating, although not in the way he intended.

Murray May :

28 Oct 2012 10:04:34pm

For those who still think that they are all happy little wind campers in Denmark, it is well worth reading more about the reality, from recognised researchers on low frequency noise in the wind turbine area, Henrik Møller, Christian Sejer Pedersen, and Steffen Pedersen, Aalborg University, Berlingske, October 9th, 2012.

The piece can be found at the following link: http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2012/10/27/minister-downplays-noise-nuisance-ministeren-bagatelliserer-stojgener/

Note the term annoyance has been downplayed in popular discussion, but in its more technical use in the field, annoyance from noise is implicated in stress, sleep disturbance, and subsequent ill-health.

IT SHOULD NOT READ -Diagnosis is the acute on chronic psychological stress disorder -physical and mental post traumatic anxiety, etc,- THIS IS NOT CORRECT

This difference between physiological (primary mechanism) and psychological(secondary effect) is CRITICAL because the initial trigger is a direct effect on specific protein sensors which are known as cellular stress proteins ie this is a molecular stress reaction to a primary physical insult eg EMF, sound, physical trauma, not a mental stress where the trigger is purely a psychological stress. This is a vital difference and is the reason why there is so much confusion as to whether it is an organic or functional disorder. Hence the critical need for absolute terminological and logical clarity

JOHN HYTE :

20 Jun 2015 1:47:48pm

The problem with wind farm emission is not noise, it is sub-harmonic transient distortion emission. when two or more turbines are in proximity to each other, a phase/de-phase effect at below human hearing levels happens and the subconscious cannot process it and becomes confused and dis-oriented. Ask the American Military about it....they have been experimenting with the phenomenon for years.